Follow Us!

Advertisement

Author's Featured Photo

UPDATE: February 18, 2018

BOEING IS INCHING closer and closer to announcing an official go-ahead of its “new midsize airplane” (NMA) concept. According to specs revealed at last summer’s Paris Air show, this medium-range, medium-capacity jetliner will have two aisles in 2-3-2 economy configuration — a sort of mini-widebody like the 767 — with a composite fuselage and wings. It’ll seat between 220 and 270 passengers, with a range of just over 5,000 nautical miles.

Is it just me, or is this much too big of an airplane?

What the industry is missing is a jet around the size of a Boeing 757. That is, a plane that tops out at around 220 passengers, not one that starts there. I like the twin-aisle idea. Two aisles makes for faster boarding and deplaning, and it gives the cabin a roomier feel overall. But, otherwise, how is this not just a 787 with a slightly shorter range?

It strikes me that the airplane Boeing ought to be putting out there is one that already exists, at least as a template. I’m talking about the 767. Specifically, the 767-200. The 767-200, which debuted in 1982, was quickly superseded by the larger -300, many of which remain in service. It’s an obsolete model that, by today’s standards, would be laughably uneconomical. In terms of size, range, and capacity, however, it’d be just about perfect as a 757 replacement. So, the thinking (mine) goes, why not upgrade it? Imagine the -200 with new engines, a new cockpit, and overhauled internal systems. Is that not a better option — especially considering the limited market that Boeing predicts for a mid-market plane — than spending billions on an all-new airframe? Call it the 767-X. Two-aisle comfort for 180-200 people; containerized luggage and cargo; all the range and unbeatable brawn of the 757. What’s not to like?

I know what you’ll say: The service life of a commercial jet is expected to be twenty years or more, and the underlying architecture of the 767 is too old for such an idea to have any long-term viability. So, fine, give it a new wing and all that, if you have to. The Boeing 797. But the plane’s basic blueprint is already right there in front of you: the 767-200!

Hewing to the 767 might make for quicker development, too. The 757 is already well past its prime. Can the U.S. majors keep them going for almost another decade? Or will they stopgap their fleets with 737s (ugh) and A321s?

It’s amazing how tediously slow aircraft development is nowadays. Almost fifty years ago, the Boeing 747 went from a drawing on the back of a napkin to full flight testing in two years! And that was a plane more than double the size of any other. Incredible. Today, a plane half that size takes four times as long to deliver.

June 19, 2017

WHAT BOEING NEEDS to build isn’t a fancy new long-range widebody. What it needs to build is a replacement for the 757.

When it debuted in the early 1980s, the twin-engined 757 was ahead of its time, and it went on to sell quite well until the production line closed twelve years ago. By now the plane is — or should be — obsolete. Indeed it’s rare to spot a 757 outside of the United States. But here at home it remains popular, a mainstay of the fleets at United, American and Delta, who together operate over three hundred of them. They’ve kept the plane on their rosters so long for good reason: its capabilities are unmatched, and there’s nothing that can replace it.

The 757 is maybe the most versatile jetliner Boeing has ever built — a medium-capacity, high-performing plane that is able to turn a profit on both short and longer-haul routes — domestic or international; across the Mississippi or across the North Atlantic. The 757 makes money flying between New York and Europe, and also between Atlanta and Jacksonville. United and Delta fly 757s from their East Coast gateways on eight-hour services to Ireland, Scandinavia, and even Africa. You’ll also see it on 60-minute segments into Kansas City, Cleveland, and Tampa.

Along the way, it meets every operational challenge. Short runway? Stiff headwinds? Full payload? No problem. With 180 passengers, the plane can safely depart from a short runway, climb directly to cruise altitude, and fly clear across the country — or the ocean. Nothing else can do that. And, it’s a good-looking machine to boot. Muscular yet graceful.

A 757 in the colors of launch customer Eastern Airlines.

I know this in part because I’ve been piloting the 757 for the past nine years, along with its somewhat bigger sibling, the 767. The 787 is an excellent replacement for the latter, but what’s going to supersede the 757?

Boeing is pitching its latest 737 variants as the right plane for the job. Airbus touts the A321. Am I the only one rolling my eyes? Sure these planes are sophisticated and efficient, but neither has the range, power, or capacity to match the 757.

With the 737, Boeing took what essentially was a regional jet — the original 737-100 first flew in 1967, and was intended to carry a hundred or so passengers on flights of around 400 miles — and has pushed, pushed, pushed, pushed, and pushed the thing to the edge of its envelope, over and over, through a long series of derivatives, from the -200 through the -900, and now onward to the 737 “MAX.” In other words, it has been continuously squeezed into missions it was never really intended for. Its range allows cross-country pairings, but transoceanic markets are mostly out of the question. It carries fewer passengers and less cargo than a 757, and at heavy weights it is often altitude-restricted. For a jet of its size, it uses huge amounts of runway and has startlingly high takeoff and landing speeds. The passenger cabin is skinny and uncomfortable, using a fuselage cross-section unchanged from the 707, engineered in the 1950s. The cockpit is incredibly cramped and noisy. And just look at the thing. The “Frankenplane,” I call it. I don’t care how many changes and updates the plane has undergone; at heart, it’s still a blasted 737 — a fifty year-old design trying to pass itself off as a modern jetliner.

I was jammed into the cockpit jumpseat — more of a jump-bench, actually — on an American Airlines 737-800 not long ago, flying from Los Angeles to Boston. Man, if we didn’t need every foot of LAX’s runway 25R, at last getting off the ground at a nearly supersonic 165 knots — thank god we didn’t blow a tire — then slowly step-climbing our way to cruise altitude. What would it have been like in the opposite direction, I wondered — a longer flight, from a shorter runway, in the face of winter headwinds?

By contrast, I recently piloted a 757 on a flight from Boston to San Francisco. At flaps 20, we lifted off at a docile 130 knots from Logan’s stubby, 7000-foot runway 09, with nearly half the runway still remaining! With every seat full and seven hours’ worth of fuel, we climbed directly to 36,000 feet and flew all the way to California. That’s performance.

Airbus, for its part, says that its A321, a stretched-out version of the A320, is the more adequate replacement than the 737. Perhaps it is, but this plane, too, fails to match the 757’s range or payload capabilities. An newer variant, the A321 “neo,” might prove to be more suitable, we’ll see. If so, and if Airbus begins to rack up orders, then shame on Boeing.

Icelandair is one of the few 757 operators outside the U.S.

What Boeing has long needed to do is design us a new airframe — let’s call it the 797 — that can equal the 757’s remarkable combination of performance and economy, but with more fuel-efficient engines, a modernized flight deck and a new cabin. This is well within the technical expertise, if not the imagination, of the world’s largest plane-maker. Or, if a whole new plane is out of the question, couldn’t they at least have updated the existing one, perhaps with new engines, before shutting down the line altogether? Yet for years the company has balked at such an endeavor, insisting that the market for such a plane, estimated at anywhere from 300 to a thousand examples, is too limited, be it an entirely new model, or even just a 757 enhancement. As a point of comparison, Boeing says that it won’t break even on its super-successful 787 program until at least 1,500 aircraft have been delivered. (If this is true, it’s a sad testament to how expensive it has become to develop new aircraft.) Meanwhile we get more and more 737s, the plane that kind of, sort of, almost does the job, but not really.

Lately, though, there are rumblings that Boeing might change its mind. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has been hinting that a 797 may indeed be in the works, and a teaser mock-up was just unveiled at the Paris Air Show just the other day. The project is nicknamed the NMA, or “new midsize airplane” concept. “We are beginning to hone in after a lot of productive conversations with our customers,” said Muilenburg in a recent interview with Aviation Week. He cites a “clear market space” for a plane that would fit between the 737 and 787 families. “But the business case has to make sense,” he cautions. “We have the capacity to do this airplane if the market tells us to.”

If you ask me, the whole Boeing NMA thing is nothing more than the 767-200 you mentioned, or the smallest 787 Dreamliner…which is either in production or needs to be shrinked a bit an go into production. Why is Boeing trying to make a planet out of a pebble? I’m still hurting from the exit of the 757, I really wish it could have gotten the same kind of service-life-extension that the 737 and 747 have been getting all along.

FlightGlobal has a longish piece with lots of questions and no answers …

ANALYSIS: How Boeing’s NMA could shake up the marketThe question on everyone’s lips at each aerospace gathering these days usually revolves around a simple three-letter acronym – NMA – and what Boeing is going to do about it.

This article is mostly a list all the possible options that Boeing, its customers, suppliers and competitor (Airbus is the only one right now — maybe Elon Musk will jump in when he has a few hours free) need to consider when deciding what the airplane should be and whether they should build/order any.

My wife and I just returned from Maui (OGG) to SFO. It was on a 757-300 which may be old, but flies just fine and the interior was fine. The only problem (aside from fuel consumption) is that since I was in the very back to get a window seat, is it took a long time to disembark. Having a 767 as a basis for a new plane would be great (I like 767s even if they are fuel hogs).

Production of the 757 ended in October 2004, after 1,050 had been built for 54 customers. The 757-200 was by far the most popular model, with 913 built. Diminished sales amid an airline industry trend toward smaller jetliners led Boeing to end production without a direct replacement, in favor of the 737 family

Patrick rightly asks why Boeing’s chosen capacity has to be so high. I think they have actually painted themselves into that corner. By upsizing the 737 up the wazoo, they are now afraid of cannibalizing their own line so they have to make the 797 bigger to squeeze it into that narrow space between MAX9 and 789. But Boeing should take a page from Apple, cannibalizing should never be a concern as long as you know it’s your own products that will achieve the upsell. Why worry if the MAX9 loses sales to this 797? Sure the MAX9 might offer a higher margin percentage wise, but the absolute revenue on the 797 will be better and it definitely will have legs. The MAX on the other hand is already way past its time.

I think Boeing really screwed this up. They should have never taken the MAX route and instead just had the guts to start working on this 797 right away, even before or at least while directing resources towards the 777X.

Now they are playing catch up with Airbus, who in the meantime will squeeze out even more of the A321LR and make it a true Transatlantic Dreamliner (thin/deep). Not to mention the perfect NA transcontinental. And by the time Boeing does catch up, they have to sell a compromised product. I honestly don’t see how they will get themselves out of this most uncomfortable position.

Hello askthepilot, I think a couple of reasons Boeing would start at 220 seats instead of end there: traffic growth increases every year so routes optimally operated by 757/A321 would be by this NMA in 10 years. Also, it is to provide more appeal to Asian customers, critical to make the project profitable long term (remember the widebody they operate on intra Asian routes that you mentioned?).

As per 767 replacement, on top of the maintenance, the cross section is too big and heavy to make the plane efficient enough for airlines (797 would have 2-3-2 but cargo hold of a narrow body, which is only possible with composites). Also, I do not know how much they can reduce costs on the 767 production line vs what airlines are willing to pay. The plane needs to beat an A321 on Transcon routes and a 787 Transatlantic for unit costs.

That is on top of what you mentioned, namely faster deplaning, more comfort…

And last but not least: the trans-Pacific got the 787 to launch long-haul thin routes, time to do another round of what the 767 achieved for Transatlantic routes in the 80s (A321LR range is too low to allow flights deep into Europe from East Coast)!

I’ve long wondered why Boeing doesn’t do a clean sheet replacement for the 737. Because the 737 is such a big seller, a 5% improvement in fuel efficiency gains much more fleet-wide than a 5% improvement in a larger jet. The development costs will be spread over very many planes. A new design would be carbon fibre, not aluminium. Unlike the 747-8 (or A380) there is no risk the market for that plane will evaporate. The current 737 is hampered by a configuration suitable for 1960s jet engines but struggles to fit modern high bypass engines.

Then the replacement 737 can have a long range variant which would fit the 757 niche.

That “struggle” to fit a high bypass turbofan on the 737 that was originally built to have a low bypass turbofan resulted in the 737’s distinctive non-circular front intake known as the “Hamster Pouch” on the Classics, NGs, and now MAXes.

Yes! Finally 757 replacement has been programmed and its LONG overdue! The newly designed 797 will draw blood from the existing 321 Airbus hands down. Airlines will pre order and “LOCK IN” deliveries years in advance. Think of the down payment as “Flex Fuel”. Boeing will give its loyal customers first dibs.

This composite 797 is what the doctor ordered and will fill that vast empty void and none too soon! Airlines without the 797 will loose flexibility… and no airline will want to be left out..

“What’s needed is a jet that tops out at around 220 passengers, not one that starts there. This seems much too big.”

You’re right about that Patrick, but the MAX 9 tops out at guess what? 220 passengers. Boeing’s scared to kill off their new 737 so soon so they’re cutting wide margins around it with the 797. Nobody’s going to buy the 737 if Boeing comes out with a clean sheet design with the same carrying capacity.

What I’m a bit concerned about is the hole Boeing’s digging itself in the short haul/regional market. It seems they’re perfectly content with leaving it all to Embraer, Airbus and the ever-expanding Bombardier, who has sold nearly 2,000 CRJs. With the MAX 7 superseding the 737-700 and the -600 long out of production, Boeing won’t have a single player in the short haul market left.

The 9 as you say 220 seats..can not take off from short runway like the 797 and deliver fuel mile cost per seat…two totally different airframe…think of it as the 737 is a “brick” sturdy long lasting low maint $$$…797 lightweight only in its element at 38,000 feet short takeoff and landing extended range..$$$$$

I don’t know what the trouble is with operating the 757 for a while longer until a replacement comes out. To use Delta as an example, their 757s are mostly 2006 or newer. Meanwhile, they operate 717s from the early 2000’s/late 90s, and MadDog’s from the 80’s and 90’s. They all have updated cabins and give a very nice ride. Their fuel economy can’t compare to 737 NG/MAX but they’re very usable and Delta can’t expect to get as much value selling their old planes versus operating them.

I rode a Delta DC9 circa 1970 in the last year of operation, and it was one of the nicest Delta flights I’ve ever had. That plane had WiFi, too.

I misread the data on airfleets. The planes that were delivered in the past 10 years are originally 90’s and 00’s. Still, just because the planes are 20+ years old doesn’t mean they have to look old. Delta could give those planes a facelift and paint job and they would look brand new.

Of course, they don’t facelift the cockpit so maybe the pilots won’t notice so much. They’ll still see the tired old plane. 🙂

This doesn’t look like a 787 to me. I’m guessing the wing is much simpler to manufacture and more suited to existing tooling used for the 767. If the 787 line are luxury sedans, this looks like a good truck. One also imagines a cargo version. Boeing has been pretty sharp about getting the market right and I’m guessing this will be no exception – and they gave you what you wanted! It’s not a 737 🙂

Boeing’s policy is that both pilots must have cross-cockpit visual and tactile feedback of the pilot-flying’s actions. A control column and wheel provide that.

They are also also back-driven by the autopilot; when the autopilot commands a turn, both control wheels will move [Patrick, am I correct on this? Will the columns move when a climb or descent are commanded?]

As implemented by Airbus, sidesticks do not provide any of this feedback. Control is switched from side to side with a panel indicator light to signify who is flying.

BTW, sidesticks are not required for fly-by-wire; the 777 and 787 both have conventional flight controls but both are fully FBW.

Similarly for engine power settings commanded by autothrottles; on Boeing aircraft the throttle levers are back-driven as the autothrottle commands power changes; on Airbus aircraft the levers do not move. The pilots have to check the EPR or N1 indicators to see power changes.

“What’s needed is a jet that tops out at around 220 passengers, not one that starts there. This seems much too big.”

My exact thoughts confirmed by the one. I think Boeing is conceding to the a321 here knowing that if they build something that size (up to 220 passengers), the a321 (or a322) will take a large chunk with ease from that market, so Boeing is going with something bigger that the a322 would have a harder time matching.

Leave it to Airbus to come with a 1-1 replacement for the 757, hopefully whatever powers it will be capable of at least 37000lbf like the PW2037, or else still fall short of a true replacement.

While airplanes and flying and travel are interesting the stories about the NMA for the next several years will be about the design process, the business case, manufacturing processes and the engines. Entry into service is eight years and billions (!) of dollars away. Sit back and enjoy the show.

Will be interesting to see if airlines are serious about this kind of aircraft. The A338 so far has received 6 orders while its larger sibling A339 has taken the bulk. The A339, however, is a direct competitor to the 789 which is selling right now and airlines claim is too large or has too mich range or whatever other mood of the day they chose to display. The A338 will be available by 2020, not 2025.

Notice how the highest thrust rating for the 737-900ER, 737 MAX, and A321 CEO and NEO are thousands of pounds less then the lowest thrust rating for the 757 and especially for the 737s. Even the smallest gap with the A321 NEO is still a significant 3,500 lbf. All of these planes are certainly going to struggle in hot, high, and humid conditions far more then the 757, and those conditions are certainly going to become far more common as the climate warms.

Not to find excuses for Boeing (my posting below I think attests to that), but to a certain extent I also think the airlines don’t know what they want. Or rather, they plan for what’s happening next year rather than next decade.

Boeing wanted to offer them a MOM or 757 replacement if you please in the form of the 783. But nobody seemed interested at all. All airlines talked about was more range, more seating, and more payload. Here we are ten years later and we see 788s doing SFO-IAH, 739s doing cross-continental, and the airlines whining to Boeing about how there’s no adequate MoM aircraft. Make up your darn minds already. It seems the aircraft you always so desperately need is the one that’s just presently not selling.

I’m by no means a turbine engineer, but I have this hunch that that we might be seeing more of these limitations and/or groundings in the future simply because of how aircraft and their engines are being designed these days.

When airlines call for more efficient aircraft and lower cost per seat, one way of designing for that is to reduce your overhead and margins. That’s great on a clear day, but of course when the temperatures rise and pressure drops, it’s that missing overhead that makes the difference between taking off like any other day and having to start offloading cargo and/or pax.

We say higher efficiency and lower cost because that sounds great, but we don’t say reduced reserves because that doesn’t sound quite so great. It’s however just as true and most likely a direct consequence of the former.

Reveling [revealing?] the first outline design elements of the proposed aircraft to ShowNews at the Paris Air Show, Boeing is showing a 787-like twin-engine tube-and-wing concept with high-aspect-ratio, fifth-generation composite wings. However, the “tube” in this case is unusually shaped, being made up of a “hybrid” composite fuselage with a cross-section whose shape is between that of the circular 777 and that of the ovoid 737. More details are expected to be unveiled today.

The Boeing/GE pairing especially started with the 777-300ER exclusive contract, and that became the most successful Boeing wide-body model ever made. However, the 777-300ER mainly had the market to itself for the longest of time due the most directly competing Airbus jet being the four engine A340-600 that got discontinued and replaced with the much more solid and newer A350-1000.

What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range.

Engine technology, aerodynamics, materials and manufacturing methods have advanced a lot since the 757s entered service so it may be that what the airlines are asking for pie on a plate, not pie in the sky.

Clearly the A321-NEO and LR is the superior product, but it still comes up far short in the range demanded by airlines even with the LR model. Clearly the only way we are going to get that range demanded in a narrow body is an entirely new aircraft. Airbus and especially Boeing should take big notes on this matter.

The middle of the market, sitting between true long-haul aircraft and the single-aisles, has always been a tricky segment to address.
[ … ]
What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range.

This 797 seems a bit too big; 200-250 /dual-class/? The 752 for most carriers carry around 180…. BA flew a 787-8 (200 passengers) from Austin to Heathrow, there’s your MOM by definition… sure it has quite a bit more range, but does it hurt if it’ll mostly be flying at least 4000+ miles (if that will be its primary niche; the transatlantic niche of the 757 that 737s can’t fly)?

A back-of-an-envelope prediction:
The 757’s successor will be the 797. It will be related to the 787 much like the 757 was to the 767. Like all Boeing airplanes, the basic design will be capable of stretching and/or higher gross weight without major wing and landing gear changes
Structure will be all composite based on the 787. Unlike the single-aisle 757, the 797 will be twin-aisle. Seating will be 2-3-2 vs the 787’s 2-4-2 . With narrower sardine-class seats, it will be 2-4-2 vs 3-3-3.
The fuselage cross-section will be a “tall oval” to allow containerized cargo and baggage in the belly.
Other 787 and 797 similarities and differences will be:
– common flight deck for a common type rating,
– smaller and lighter wing,
– all-new smaller very quiet ultra-efficient lower-thrust
engines with several optional thrust ratings
– less fuel capacity. Lower empty weight.
– same cruise speed but shorter range.
– maximum systems and avionics commonality.

Patrick, you are right about the 737 cockpit. It’s too small, especially for a long flight. The first observer seat folds down across the door. The optional 2nd observer seat behind the Captain is a shelf with a cushion, a seatback, and a safety harness. When all four seats are occupied, it’s more a stuffed old VW Bug than a flight deck. True story: when Boeing was developing the 737NG, there were suggestions to use the 757 nose and flight deck. No go: too many $$$, too heavy, and the change could have negated the 737 type rating being applicable to the NG. Too bad.

The 737MAX10 is a derivative too far. It won’t be a big seller. It’s not really competitive with the A321NEO. That airplane is being marketed as a 757 replacement. Its passenger load is equivalent to the 757’s, but the wing is smaller so performance won’t be as good. Nevertheless, although not yet in service, the A321NEO has already outsold the 757’s entire 22-year production run.

Existing 757 passenger fleets are steadily shrinking. They are either being sold off for conversion to freighters or being scrapped. Too bad – they are such elegant airplanes.

There will never be any more 757’s. After production ended in 2004, Boeing scrapped the tooling and tore down most of Renton’s production and engineering space

Another thing to mention with the current firm orders announced at the Paris Airshow for the 737-10 is that they are all aircraft leasers, low cost carriers, and leisure airlines: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/paris-air-show-2017/index.page#/video
Boeing has chased low cost carriers ever since they scored a huge cash cow with the 737 Classic and Southwest back in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. With hitting a giant low cost carrier jackpot with the 737, they neglected and discontinued the 757, and thought they could ride on the 737 for all of eternity like others have said on this post.

That’s a quality of the -300 that gives it the nickname “Flying Pencil”. I guess you could say that about the -200 too, but really it’s probably about the same length as later models of the 707. As some other commenters down below have already said, I think a lot of the grace of the 757 gets lost in the -300’s long fuselage. Plus, it makes for an absolute headache of a boarding and deplaning in that skinny fuselage.

I’ve been wondering if perhaps the correct approach given the unique capabilities of the 757 but the rather limited airline demand that perhaps a production-line reconstruction of existing aircraft with modern engines and cockpit similar to the -70 series Douglas created from existing -60 series in the 1970s might be appropriate? The -70 series was very successful, taking an aircraft that was almost obsolete and extending its lifetime for 30 years more (UPS retired their last -70 in 2009). A similar reconstruction of the 757 could keep the fleet flying until mid-century.

I have been a passenger on many 737 and 757 trips. When I am on the 737, I always wonder if we are ever going to get off the ground before we run out of runway. On the 757, I can feel the full acceleration and liftoff. Taking off in the 757 is like driving a Tesla while lthe 737 is at 50 year old VW 4 cylinder. My only problem with the757 is that if I am in the back of the plane it is a long time before I am going to deplane upon arrival.

Agree completely. I started my “road-warrior” career right out of college in 1989, the same year Boeing delivered its highest number of 757’s.ushered out the 727, another plane I miss. Now I’m a million miler on both Delta & United, with a lot of 757 time. They’re all a bit worn looking inside but servicable. And I abhor the stretched 737 cattle machines.

There is a 757 replacement, it’s called A321LR. It’s entirely Boeing’s own fault they chose to hand all those sales to Airbus. But that’s what you get when you try to hold onto the past rather than innovate and shape the future. There’s way too much of this attitude here in the States. You can’t lead if you do not innovate. Riding on the marvels of the 50s and 60s is not how to lead into the future. Others will gladly take over. All hail our new Chinese overlords. 😉

I would add one more. Boeing got addicted to lucrative bulk orders for the 737 from low cost carriers and Southwest especially. Look at how Boeing is catering to that low cost carrier clientele with the 737 MAX-200 that crams 200 people into a cabin around 100 feet/32 meters long. Only low cost carriers would by that dense and cramped jet.

I join Mary Monk in praise of the 757’s beauty and regret at not seeing it this side of the Atlantic anymore. The good-looking airliners are being replaced by monstrosities.

Apologies to anyone whose point I may be repeating (too many posts to read them all at this hour) but I wonder whether Boeing’s break-even point may also have to do with lower prices imposed by competing with Airbus.

Bravo!! Well written and spot on. There simply isn’t an aircraft in operation today that can fill the shoes on those long legs. The 757 was such a remarkable aircraft in all senses that I cannot fathom the decision to shut it down. Why Boeing never considered an upgrade program for the 757 similar to the 747 floors me – particularly considering all the enhancements available which tweak her performance and efficiency. I can only hope that the 75 flies for a long while yet. A beautiful, easy to fly, well mannered kite – astounding performer with no vices. What a loss her passing will be.

The 757 had an edge on maintenance reliability, and was a great joy to fly. The engine not being used anywhere else can be solved now either variety of high by pass engines on the market. Like what was said in another article the 737 was a regional airliner to compete with the venerable Diesel 9. I have maintained most major aircraft platforms flying up to the ND-11s and I feel by far the 757 fills many gaps that are not adequately filled by the 737 or 777.

Boeing chooses to ride 737 into infinity, after all it’s the moneymaker paying for losses on the 787-8 and other stumbles. The ground clearance problems when using new high bypass power plants was solved for the –300 series onward with the infamous “dented in” bottom. Boeing held the best solution to increasingly larger and larger diameter engine intakes, the 757. An aircraft design passengers loved, aviation lovers considered the 757 the most beautiful bird in sky. The seating was the same 6-across as the 707, 727, before it, however the 757 felt roomier, spacious, less boxy.
Because Boeing arrogantly approached narrowbody customers with a “its the 737 or else” sales pitch, 757’s were replaced by A320, 321 purchases, still Boeing didn’t flinch. They had a gold nugget, they just threw away.

The 757 got hit by a triple whammy: Its engines, airframe and cockpit are pretty much one of a kind. Same thing that happened to the MD-95/717 in the end.

Engines: Neither the RB211-535 or the PW2000 were used anywhere else (not counting the C-17). That meant extra inventory costs and complication, and bean counters always look at that when they swing the axes and make a mess of things. The 737 had CFM56s that are shared by world+dog, and sold by the hour by SNECMA.

Airframe: Parts for the pig (“la chancha” in Spanish, the Argentine nickname for the 737) are sold at Wal-Mart, and fit everything from -600 to -900ERXYZ-longer-than-a-707 variants. Some parts even fit ALL 737s from the only -100 left flying to today’s green MAX in Seattle. 757 parts don’t even fit the 767, which is its designated ugly fat friend.

Cockpit: The 757’s cockpit was the first Boeing didn’t design by filling the bird test air cannon with instruments and aiming it in the general direction of the front of the aircraft. That’s cool for pilots who get to fly it on a 757/767 rating… which is not compatible with the rest of the airlines’ fleet, which is mainly composed of 737s. Again, too much complication for the bean counters, who will swing their beloved axes and say it’s more efficient to train pilots in a single type of aircraft, safety/efficiency/pax comfort/the whole world be damned to hell.

Why do you think that Boeing chose to update the 737 rather than the 757? The 757 was conceived at a later date than the 737, and thus had a newer design. Why did they choose to modify an aircraft that is decades older than the 757 and add newer technology to it in an effort to replace the 757? I’ve read that it was in part because of a market trend toward smaller jets for short to mid range flights, but I’d be interested to hear your opinion on it.

I believe Boeing got hooked on the low cost carrier drug with the 737 more then anything. A hypothesis that is reinforced with the 737 MAX-200 version. Southwest pretty much resurrected the 737 from the scrapheap with huge bulk orders for the 737 classic, NG, and now MAX versions, and Boeing just got sucked onto the 737 with that. Look at how many low cost carriers all over the world fly the 737 now.

Also the a321LR would only be able to replace the 757 when it needs to fly far away given enough runway, but not when it needs to fly out of hot and high airports or to those with short runways, such as airports in Central America. The small a319S is covering some of those flights already from DFW as an example (many of these flights used to be 757-flown). Neither Airbus could do both hot/high and long range together.

Isn’t 3000nm+ more than enough range even if strong headwinds exist? Or is the problem there because the 737 is just too “heavy” (which compared to a 757, it definitely is in terms of T/W ratio) and only has that much range because it carries enough fuel? I guess you can make a Cessna 172 fly transatlantic flights if you strap several tons of fuel to it, but it’ll need a hk of a lot more power and runway to make it.

Having said all that, how long is long enough for a 737 (7 or 8) to fly?

Hopefully this new MOM aircraft will be a hit…. and personally, I hope it looks just as “graceful” and pretty (aesthetics have always been important to me).

Seems like everything is getting replaced by 737s (and a320s) nowadays; even large aircraft like the 767 and a300 (recall Lufthansa’s domestic fleet) have been “replaced” with aircraft half their size, with the justification that the airline will simply “boost frequency”. Way to crowd airports.

But yes, 737s are been put on missions it was never really designed for. I’m surprised 7377s fly from SNA all the way to EWR! On a 6000 ft runway (though to be fair the elevation is pretty low but is hot). How much runway did you think you used on that one transcon flight to Boston?

I guess my question is, if an aircraft /could/ fly a route, why shouldn’t it? Is there enough of a safety margin in place, or is it actually dangerous to fly such a route? Don’t get me wrong, I think the 757 if anything should be kept as a transcon-liner, or kept to fly anything over 2000 nautical miles. Kudos to Delta for keeping it that way for the most part (unlike American which has replaced much of its transcon service with 738s, such as SFO-MIA, LAX-BOS, DEN-MIA, and even SEA-MIA… yikes!!).

One other thing I wonder about: if the 737 is advertised to fly up to 3000 nautical miles, why couldn’t it comfortably fly coast to coast when that distance is only about 2000nm+? (continued)

Call it the Southwest effect 2.0. After making a joke of SWs cattle call boarding, it’s no meals on long flights, stuffing as many bodies into their pudgy 737 cocoons as they could; the legends went out and copied their maligned competitor. Agreed the 737 was designed for 500-1000 mile flights, not criss crossing the country.

Here in London, it is a rarity to see a 757 now. They were THE BEST: elegant, powerful and could operate on routes other aircraft just cannot fly. The scrapping of Monarch’s 757’s was one of the saddest days. They were well-maintained and could have carried on flying. They were killed by the suits at Greybull, a bunch of bankers who know nothing about aircraft.

I have tried to get a guaranteed flight on a 757 with Thomson or Thomas Cook the only holiday operators left. I don’t care where I go as long as it’s on a 757!! But they can never confirm so I don’t book. When I’m on an A321 I try to pretend it’s a 757.

You guys in the U.S., make the most of that beautiful aircraft whilst you still have the chance; you’ll miss her when she’s gone.

Thanks, Mary, for the nice comment. I fly the 767 and 757 both. I have to say that I prefer the 767. The cockpit is quieter, roomier, cleaner. The 757 flight decks are incredibly grimy, and that damn recirculation fan is LOUD! Still, I try to savor and appreciate it, best I can.

Hi Mary. I agree with you that seeing a 757 these days in UK is a very rare experience. I am however somehow lucky. I had the trip on Thomson airways 757 about 3 times , each time it was a great experience and demonstration of the aircraft capabilities. I’m also double lucky because of fact I leave directly on the approach to the RWY 08 at Luton airport and I can see runaway light from my window. Till not long ago french based airline LaCompagnie operated its stunning 757-200W reg F-HTAG from here . It was trully stunning looking 757 ! Shame is no longer here

Icelandair flies two flights a day to LHR and one to LGW, they also serve Manchester, Birmingham, Aberdeen and Glasgow. Now as to which flights are 757 and which are 767 (Icelandair has 4 767s) I can’t say but suffice it to say there are a fair number of UK 757 flights on their manifest.

I agree with you, but nothing succeeds like success. There are 3200+ orders for the MAX on the books. It will probably make international flights. Its performance is sure to be much better than the current iterations.

Boeing’s stretch of the original 737-100 was no different than the DC-9; howevery, Douglas did not try to develop it into a transcontinental jetliner. The now defunct Hawaii express flew 3rd generation 737-700

Boeing’s stretch of the original 737-100 was no different than the DC-9; howevery, Douglas did not try to develop it into a transcontinental jetliner. The now defunct Hawaii express flew 3rd generation 737-700

I agree that the 737 is an unlovely aircraft. But you take it to task for the narrow fuselage, when of course the 757 has the same diameter. The A321neoLR will not truly replace the 757, but it will provide most of the essential route pair replacements of the medium haul to ‘short-longhaul’ 757 service now done by US carriers, with a modestly more comfortable cross section.
Boeing blew it when they didn’t take Airbus seriously in the development of the A321 and, in my opinion, the just as important recognition that passengers are getting wider!

Having flown the 737, it would go down as the worst aircraft I have flown ergonomically. It is a dinosaur and they are going to revive it again with the “max”. It is basically the aircraft equivielent of Elizabeth Taylor having so many face lifts and makeovers in it’s time. It is not easy or nice to fly and the fittings are just out of the DC3 age. I now fly an Airbus and what a dream that is to fly. Large spacious cockpit and the fly by wire technology really makes it a dream to fly. Surely there is a market for a new generation 737 replacement…?

I’m no pilot, but in my experience (on x-plane) the v-speeds on the 737 have always been 5-10 knots higher than the airbus. The higher v-speeds don’t really affect the safety though it does also mean that the takeoff roll is longer (meaning that the short field capabilities of the 737 would’ve been weaker).

Two years after Boeing launched studies for a new middle-of-the-market (MOM) aircraft, the first clear picture is beginning to emerge to show where the company’s evaluations are going and what kind of family may be developed.
[ … ]
“The MOM is starting to shape out to be in an area from where the 757 used to fly to where the 767-200/300 flies,” says Mike Delaney, vice president and general manager of airplane development at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “That’s not 100% across the board. You have three groups: those that want to fly more people, those that want more range and the group that wants to fly more people with more range. However, this airplane really wants to be transatlantic, so most of the customers want [it] to fly 4,800-5,000 nm. That’s significantly longer than the 757, but the seat count wants to be between 200 and 260 to 270 max. So it is a little bit bigger than a current single-aisle but not quite as big as a 767-type aircraft.” http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeings-new-midsize-airplane-low-development-cost-price-are-key

I understand that pilots like the 757. It has good power, good wings, is responsive like a sports car. But for passengers, the 757 can be a nightmare. It is a one-aisle jumbo jet, and if you are in the rear of economy with a connecting flight, it is one nervous experience, sitting in row 40, wondering if anyone will ever get off the plane. It is not passenger friendly. The 767 is much nicer.

The 737 is not really much of an improvement.

While pilots did not like the Mad Dog, due to its lack of thrust, the layout in the cabin was pretty nice, especially if you got on the 2 side.

Good point about the 757. It does take forever to get on and off the thing. I wish that more U.S. airports used double jetways. In Europe and Asia, where they use two or even three jet bridges at a time, I’ve seen them load and unload a packed 747 or A380 in ten minutes. The 757 has two forward-of-the-wing, left-side doors that would allow this. Of course, it does have only a single aisle, which somewhat negates this advantage, but still it’d make the process faster.

As for the “Mad Dog,” it was comfortable in the forward rows, but if you were in the very back, close to the engines, it was really loud, and the long skinny fuselage, like the 757, made for tedious boarding and deplaning. (I say “was,” but here in the U.S. there are still plenty of MD-80 series planes flying).

While I would have to agree with the author as to the fact that the 737 was never designed to fill the shoes of a 757, and shouldn’t have to; the plane is versatile in it’s own right. It’s versatility comes in the number of variations it comes in; as proven by Southwest Airlines, who operates solely on variants of the 737. However, the author is completely correct: the 737 did not need to get any bigger than the -800 variant. What was, and still is needed, is an aircraft which can match the 757; one designed for the role, not spliced into it.

Planes run strongly in my family, specially in my dad and myself. My dad is a former aircraft mechanic himself. We share our distrust for the 737 in longer routes.

For my day job, I frequently fly the MVD-PTY route (almost 7 hours), operated by CM with 737s. They are uncomfortable even in business class, go figure. They are slow, often flying at no more than 800 km/h (looking for max fuel efficiency I guess), and when they are about to land they are less than 30 min away from their max autonomy spec. Basically they land on fumes (which for a landing in MVD quite restricts your diversion airport choices).

We love the 757, and I believe Boeing committed a huge mistake when they shut down the line. I’m pretty sure that the newer A321 variants (not only the NEO, but a rumored higher gross weight variant as well) will capture that market segment for good.

I remember flying Etihad Airways from Abu Dhabi to Chennai, India. That route was operated using an Airbus A321. But I am not sure if it can be classified as a true “trans-oceanic” flight (which it is). I also believe A-321s are used on routes like Moscow to Western Europe. I would think the A321 is probably the closest competitor/successor to the 757.

I wonder if the real obstacle in updating the existing 757 is metal fatigue, considering the age an number of cycles on many of the airframes.

Granted, any packed 3-3 cabin is uncomfortable, but the 757 sure could handle itself, for any experienced traveler who cared to notice. I’ve seen them climb in and around storms, and sometimes plow through when there was no other option. The power with either RB211 or PW2037, agility, and stability were impressive and reassuring.

This is not what sells airplanes in 2016, but nothing I’d rather be on in really difficult flying conditions. The 757 is also beautiful, sort of combination of the best features of the 707 and DC-8, with 2 fewer engines.

Honorable mention to the 767 series, some of the same qualities in a wider package.

@Beezer44: I could not agree more. From a passenger perspective I hate any narrow body plane with the 3-3 seating configuration. When I go somewhere I always pick the plane whenever possible and I avoid the 757, 737, A319/20 always choosing the 767 (a great plane) A330/40 or better yet the Embraer 145/175/190 planes. Their seat configuration is so much more comfortable being never more than one seat from the aisle.

I worked on the 757 just as it was announced for production in 1978. It has the same fuselage cross-section as the 707, 727 and 737. Originally it had a 727-type nose section (Boeing lingo: 41 Section). The 41 Section was rapidly re-designed after much debate about pilot visibility issues in the PSA 727 accident in 1978. It was changed to use the glass from the 767, which was being designed concurrently; this made for an all-new 41 with no parts from the 727.

The basic design target was the one-engine takeoff from an airport that is at about 10,000 feet altitude on a hot day – ergo big engines.

The tall landing gear would accommodate engines with a larger fan – more efficient to operate.

Boeing should just re-start the production. Too bad they cancelled the program after less than 100 of the 757-300’s were built.

The 757 has been flying college football teams cross county including BYU an independent forced to travel more than team’s in a conference, and further. They use PVU at 4700 feet elevation, having a 8,000 and 6000 foot runways. The aircraft carries a large cargo and the seats are occupied by players up into the 340 pound range.
What other narrow body can take the place of the 757 charter for flights to Boston, Wash D.C.,Miami or Orlando? Many of those takeoffs can take place in August or September when temps can be in the upper eighties to lower nineties.
A fully fueled 737-800 requires a longer runway so flights leave from SLC 40 miles north inconvenient and costlier. An Airbus requires a refueling stop in DEN, STL, or MCI.
Boeing could deal with commonality quirks with the aircraft if they wished to. The standard seems to be the Dreamliner cockpit and wings, redesign the fuselage and shop the engine requirements to P&W, RR, and GE.

The 757 is really special plane and I neither see the 737NG along with MAX and even the A321 and A321NEO fully cutting it on replacing it. The engines powering all these current and future aircraft appear to be less powerful then the 757’s engines which can be a critical factor in short runways and hot temp and/or high altitude airport operations.
There is also I feel a real demand for an ultra long haul narrowbody airliner that can bypass wide body hubs and infrastructure upgrades which neither the 737 and A320 can really do because they are both medium haul aircraft that tend to be confined mostly to hub and spoke operations for airlines of all kinds.
We probably need a completely new design of aircraft and engine to take full advantage that niche, but a hypothetical 757 MAX-8 with raked wing and tips like the 777F/200LR/300ER, 787-8/9/10 and 747-8 with a modern engine with the power or slightly greater then 757-200/300 could come real close to filling that gap.

I was very sad/angry when production of the 757 closed but was encouraged when I started seeing them retrofitted with winglets. Perhaps I am wrong but I took that as a sign to me that airlines were planning to fly them a while longer (and to mitigate their notorious wake turbulence).

If I recall correctly, another factor in the favour of A32x adoption for larger narrow-body requirements by virtually every major carried outside the USA was that the low deck can hold LD3 ULDs if ordered with the correct door option.

Good info on the 757, not long ago I was wondering why you don’t see them around anymore, well I haven’t been to the US for quite sometime now… maybe that’s why.
As for the 737, Monoglot is right, Air China, China Southern and China Eastern have hundreds of 737s, Malaysia Airlines operates 80. Silkair also operates a number of 737s. These serve not only domestic routes but also all of South East Asia.
In other words, they are very popular in Asia and are indeed great planes, different from the impression Patrick gives on his post.

Thanks Patrick – really interesting post. I’d be interested to hear more about the “startlingly high take off and landing speeds” – how different are they from the 320/321 and why? Also what are the implications of that on safety, versatility etc?

On your last point, it was interesting to read that the 737 is losing out to Airbus. I’m based in China and have flown a lot domestically over the last few years. While I always go for a widebody plane if I have the choice (777s, 787s, 330s and even 340s and 380s are available on a *lot* of routes here), it seems to me that the 320 vs 737 split is about even, and a quick check of the top four Chinese airlines seems to confirm that. Any idea why?

When I was in India a few weeks ago, we took a couple of flights in Jet Airways, which operates 737-800s. It seems they have about 75 737 variants in their fleet about about 75 on order. Also, SpiceJet operates 737s, so India may be a minor exception to the “outside the United States” rule.

Yes – I was about to point out too that Jet Airways and Spicejet are major 737 operators. But somehow right from the olden days, Indian Airlines (Now merged into Air India) has predominantly been an Airbus operator.

As a regular flyer with Ryanair 737,s I have always wondered why the take -off run was sooo long. Now I know. Is this also why the 737 doesn’t land as such bur more like being thrown down on the runway????. 737,S always seem to land with a thud. EasyJet and their Airbus has a more pleasant experience

Jim,
The 737’s long takeoff run is due to airline economics. The simple explanation is that the 737 (-800s at AA) has four engine options on the wing. We first select the thrust rating engine we want to use (22k, 24k, 26k or 27k lbs of thrust) and then “derate” (reduce the thrust again) that engine to get the “optimum” (least operating cost) thrust setting for the particular takeoff situation. Basically: the lower the takeoff thrust = the lower the operating costs. Therefore; the longer the runway available = the lower the takeoff thrust = the longer the ground roll to reach the same flying speed.

I wonder what the C-series take off velocity is (vs. the 737, as that is one of the target replacements according to Bombardier). I see that the former can take off from a 4000 foot field, so think it would be a fair bit lower. I have no idea how the flight decks compare in size/layout.

Since there is no comment section on your Express Blog, I’ll post here about your anti-jet-bridge mini-rant. You are right, there is much more of a connection to the airplane experience when you get on or off the rolling stairway. There can also be a big time savings if a bus takes you from the plane right to an entrance near immigration/ baggage claim. However, those stairs are a disaster for the mobility impaired. And walking onto the plane can be awfully unpleasant for the fully able-bodied if it is spitting sleet and you are stuck on a stairway waiting for a busload of people in front of you to get their bags into the overhead bins so you can get indoors.

As a passenger, I cannot speak for the operational, economic or cockpit features of the 757. But from someone who travels steerage, mho to the 757 is “goodbye and good riddance.” It is the most uncomfortable of any of the large aircraft for passengers. The typical 757 configuration is a single long tube of 3×3 seating with some heads and a galley stuffed uncomfortably in the rear. Other than seated (and belted in, of course), there is no place on a longer flight to stretch legs or stretch at all, stand, queue up for the toilet or avoid the flight attendants trying to do their jobs.

I appreciate that modern aviation economics dictate stuffing the maximum number of bodies into the minimum amount of space. But I suspect “coach” comes close to violating at least one provision of the Geneva Convention.

If anyone is looking for a unique 757 experience asides from Icelandair, check out La Compagnie. They fly between New York and Paris/London in 757s kitted out in Business Class only. https://www.lacompagnie.com

More fun trivia: The folks behind La Compagnie tried this exact same trick before, but sold their operation to BA, who promptly fitted Y and Y+ cabins. Now called OpenSkies.

(note: I’m not affiliated with any of these companies, just saying people should try this out and report back!)

I’ve always wondered what UA is going to do to replace all those 757 routes to Europe? I’ve looked at the specs for the 321 neo. Seems a very tight margin of error on range if you want to fly that plane EWR-STR or EWR-HAM. Plus, UA is now an all-Boeing carrier. Since UA is my preferred carrier, I’m wondering if they’ll have to switch to the 787 on those routes instead.

Martin: first off UA is not all-Boeing. They have A319 and A320 in their fleet plus orders for A350-1000.
The crux of Patrick’s article is that there is no direct 757 replacement, either in UA’s fleet plans or otherwise. The 737-900/ER is cramped and has a noisy cockpit (again according to Patrick), and the A321 comes closest but still lacks in range/payload, so airlines either upguage to 767 or A330-200 if their route economics justify a widebody (and take a haircut on yield), or increase A321/737-900ER frequency and eat the operating and landing/airport costs.
As I mentioned a couple of posts down, no easy way out….

Actually United already has replaced many of the 757’s on transatlantic flights with 767’s. IIRC they’ve retired most of the original United 757s and moved most of the ex-Continental ones onto domestic flights to replace them, particularly on Hawaii flights.

I’m one of those geeks that goes onto FlightDiary to log every one of my airline segments, complete with registrations. It’s fun to realize how many times I’ve been to the moon and back, according to the math that spells it all out when you enter the mileage for each trip.

The site also gives you nice metrics on the planes you’ve been on most, and for me the 757 rises to second place on the list (to the 737-300). Several of those journeys were either to or from Manchester (MHT) in the days when United served our airport with mainline service. 757s were used twice and sometimes 3x daily, and my flights were full or nearly so to or from ORD. Also memorable were the ‘John Wayne Takeoffs’ where they’d spool the engines up while standing on the brakes. It was enough of a difference so that noting it to passengers over the PA was a standard practice.

The 757 is indeed in need of a replacement. The next-gen 737s are probably too small, even though at Logan the 738 is about as common as mosquitoes at a picnic.

“Both airlines have been aware of the diversion problem for years, particularly after dozens of diversions affected Boeing 757 trans-Atlantic flights in 2012. In December of that year, United’s 757s had to stop 43 times to refuel out of nearly 1,100 flights headed to the U.S., according to the Wall Street Journal. The reason was an unusually strong jet stream blowing across the North Atlantic. A year earlier, there were only 12 unscheduled stops on about the same number of flights, the paper reported.”

“However, the 757 is attractive to airlines on certain routes because it accommodates fewer people than wide-body jets like the Boeing 767 or Airbus A330, which is ideal for flights at times that are less busy or between cities with lower demand, such as Oslo to Newark.”

Patrick: well written. The skies will be poorer once the last 757 is retired, but I can’t think of an “easy” way out for Boeing, especially given the A321 so entrenched worldwide.

IF Boeing were to tackle a non-737 MOM, I surmise that, instead of a 757X (or MAX, or NG – label isn’t important), it will likely a clean-sheet design. Two reasons:

1) Timeline. Boeing has their hands FULL. 737 MAX 9 and 200 still being worked on, 787-10 next, 777X after that. By the time Boeing starts on their MOM, no airline in their right mind would want a re-engined 50 year old design. Yes 50 years.

2) Marketplace. As I pointed out earlier, the A321 is everywhere. It’s outsold the 757 and 737-900/ER. Even in North America it’s made more than a beachhead, it’s a core part of the intercontinental product at AC, AA, VX, and B6. To get airlines to pivot off that? They will want something completely revolutionary. 737 MAX 9 isn’t revolutionary. Re-engined 757 will not deliver revolutionary either.

Boeing did propose a 787-3 (a shrunken-down 787-8) to the Japanese carriers, but even they were lukewarm and that ended up being scrapped. (Airlines have not been keen on fuselage shrinks full-stop.) While it’s possible Boeing resurrects this idea, I’m fairly sure the reception won’t be any better this time around.

So, I think the “797” will end up being a clean-sheet narrow-body, with tech liberally cribbed from the 787, 777, and even the 747-8. Here’s your revolution.

I’ll basically say “amen” regarding the 757. I didn’t like the noisy hydraulics, and two trans-Atlantic roundtrips (United to Dublin, Icelandair to Keflavik) were certainly cramped. But in my road-warrior days, the trips on the 757 tended to be the most comfortable flying — and it certainly handles the bumps much better than the 737!

By taking off into the wind (the wind will generate part of the required lift) the aircraft lifts off sooner and this will result in a lower ground speed and therefore a shorter take-off run for the aircraft to become airborne. It is therefore recommended.

Not only for safety reasons: a take-off that is abandoned will also use less runway to stop because ground speed is lower (check the ASDA distance during preflight). Climbing into the wind will result in a steeper climb, which is ideal for clearing obstacles in your climb out path.

A rule of thumb says that take-off and landing distances are reduced 1,5 % for each knot of headwind up to 20 knots.

“Man if we didn’t need every foot of LAX’s runway 25R, at last getting off the ground at a nearly supersonic 160 knots — thank god we didn’t blow a tire — then slowly step-climbing our way to cruise altitude. What would it have been like in the opposite direction, I wondered — a longer flight, from a shorter runway, in the face of winter headwinds?”

As both a frequent flyer (740,000+ miles on Star Alliance alone), and a private pilot (single engine hobbyist), I really appreciate you comparisons of the different versions of the 737 and the A320 series. Thanks, I always wondered why Airbus was racking up the orders, and has a bigger backlog than Boeing.

“If a whole new plane was out of the question, couldn’t they at least have updated the existing one, perhaps with new engines, before shutting down the line altogether?”

-I agree 101%! I have never flown on a 757 but I’ve been in love with it since I first saw one more than 15 years ago. It is a fine, sexy, regal plane to me (I swear, to say I love the aircraft is an understatement LOL). It’s a very rare aircraft here in the Philippines and everytime I see one (mostly FX’s -200SFs), I’m always eye drooling – big time. I’m one those people who would love to see an enhanced version of the 757, but with Boeing’s current plan, it seems like it will not happen anytime soon (or ever ????).

Even so, I’m still hoping to fly on a 757 soon. Icelandair’s Hekla Aurora is def on my list!

I flew all three (B757, B737, A320). The performance and handling of the B757 was superior and most pilots would agree it was the most fun to fly. It could just do things the others could not. The A321 neo is the only logical successor. The current A321’s are real dogs, but the power boost should help a lot. Boeing missed an important niche on this.

Hi Patrick—my most uncomfortable flights have been Economy class on United 757s. The 3/3 configuration with no leg room and a hip-scraping aisle is not where you want to be overnight from L.A. to Boston. Iceland Air uses similar torture tubes. I will grant you that it can get into the air in a hurry. We left St. Maarten’s pinched airport one evening and I was very happy at how steeply we powered away from the mountain at the end of the runway. But I will never knowingly choose to fly on one again.

Patrick, what does “Shut Down a Production Line” mean ??? The 757 is one of the best Boeing Jets built. Why “shut down” if it is possible to make improvements..i.e. DC8-61/62/63 to DC871/72/73 with up to 189 passengers and long range.

Instead of designing the 797 why not simply refurbish the existing 757s? Isn’t it possible to replace the engines with more fuel efficient ones, and upgrade the cockpit and cabin? I would think this would provide 90% of the efficiency gain of a new aircraft at a fraction of the cost.

I always enjoyed flying the 757 from LGA to DTW on Northwest. That was a dedicated route for that aircraft. The 757 did indeed seem roomier than other single aisle jets. I remember the short take-offs and rapid climbs out of LGA. It always seemed like we hit cruise altitude within 5 mins.

I was lucky enough to fly a 757 from JFK to Vegas and that was a comfortable 5 hour flight. I flew a 737 on a 2 hour flight from OKC to Vegas and that seemed like a cramped flight that took forever.

It’s sad to see the extent to which R&D has been scaled back at most American companies these days…even at companies like Boeing. Yes, they did just roll out the 787, but the 70s and 80s were full of rapid R&D. It was what, almost 20 years between the roll out of the 777 and the 787?

In the years from 2007 to 2015, Boeing spent the following on R&D activities (company-funded):
2014: $3,047 million, or 3.4% of total revenues.
2013: $3,071 million, or 3.5% of total revenues.
2012: $3,298 million, or 4.0% of total revenues.
2011: $3,918 million, or 5.7% of total revenues.
2010: $4,121 million, or 6.4% of total revenues.
2009: $6,506 million, or 9.5% of total revenues.
2008: $3,768 million, or 6.2% of total revenues.
2007: $3,850 million, or 5.8% of total revenues.
2006: $3,257 million, or 5.3% of total revenues.

Was happy to see this entry. I’ve spent more time then I’d like admit researching the demise of the 757at the hands of its maker. I’d say it’s only second to the Concorde in terms of head scratching question marks. You had a one of a kind plane that could do anything and replace it with stretched out regional jet. My favorite comparison is the one you made about the 757 being able to blast off to cruising altitude while the 737 takes one of those stair case elevators for old people to get there. A plane with more power then it needs, when has that ever happened other then with the 757? We know it definitely won’t happen again. As for the passenger experience, the 757 feels like a wide body even though it only has one isle. The feeling of adventure that only a sectioned off plane can inspire. When you walk into a 737 and see the long aisle of seats all the way to the back there is no mystery , you’re flying to Milwaukee. I will miss the 757 when it finally retires. My personal opinion is that Boeing didn’t want to give customers an option to buy anything other then a Dreamliner for those long thin routes. Too bad Airbus is keeping the A330 around with new engines, less money, no long wait and probably 95% of the performance.

I work for FedEx, we bought about a 100 or so of these 757 desert queens and converted them to freighters. The 757’s are our most dependable plane behind the brand new 767’s we bought recently. The Rolls engines have a few quirks but once they got sorted they are bullet proof, the Pratts are good too. They do have a tendency to use hydraulic fluid and leak, that is not good but the storage probably caused that.Your article made me realize what a versatile niche the 757 occupies. I’ve maintained the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, all variants, the 757 is and was an amazing airplane for it’s time. FedEx will be flying them for 20 more years, probably one or two you’ve flown. That was a good article about them.

I absolutely agree with with your article!
I’m retired with about 28,000hrs, stopped counting around 25,000hrs.
Started as a Connie S/O and retired as a 747 Capt. with various
Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed and Airbus experiences.
The 757 was, is and will be my favorite!
The ‘bean counters” , the scourge of the aviation industry, are going
to force Boeing to lose a very important market by not producing a
great, new aircraft to improve upon the 757!
Recently flew to the coast on *** HPN-ORD-PDX, on both 737 and A320.
From a pax standpoint the A320 is much more comfortable!
Thanks for the great article! I just hope Boeing builds a new winner!

I’ve flown more than 1,200 domestic flights on United 737s and A320s in the last eight years, about a 50-50 split. From a passenger perspective, I prefer the 737 because it’s quieter. The widely cited cabin width advantage of the A320? I’ve never been able to discern it in practice. Frankly, from a passenger perspective, the differences between the two aircraft are overwhelmed by all the other stuff that an airline does to make a flight a tolerable, poor, or good experience. Seat quality, scheduling reliability, on-board service, gates, etc., those make the experience, not a difference in width I can’t even definitively identify.

As a passenger, I loved the 757. Roomy, 24 seats in United first which meant an upgrade was almost a given for me, and the superquick takeoffs and climbouts were fun. Unfortunately other than United P.S. and the 300s, they’ve disappeared from domestic flights.

I’ve noted the difference in cabin width. You can tell if you sit in a window seat in Y. On a Boeing NB your armrest and shoulder are right up against the sidewall, while on a single aisle Airbus you have a nice few inches of space there, enough to store a pillow or even a thin briefcase or laptop bag.

“With 180 passengers on board, the can safely depart from a 7,000-foot runway … and fly clear across the country. Nothing else can do that.”
The A340-300 can take off on a 7,000-ft. runway and then fly 300 pax trans-atlantic. Air France does it every day of the week, SXM to CDG. (Today the runway at SXM is 7,500 feet. In 2008 when I was in St. Martin for the first time, the runway was 7,000 ft long. My flight back to Europe was non-stop.)

If I thought $500 for the 757 was too much and opted for another route with an intermediate stop, that $100 discount PLUS bigger plane and with some potential empty seats rather than fully packed, would be an easy choice.

Side note, I love flying the 330/340s in a window seat, because they only have 2 seats on the window side in coach.

As a flyer, I couldn’t agree more. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I swear the worst flight I ever experienced was a 737 from Boston to Heathrow (AA I think). And it bucked like crazy through some unusually rough jetstream air. I came as close as I’ve ever come to a full on panic attack, closer than 9/11, closer than when I was cornered by ruffians as a kid. Worst flight ever. I had a bad feeling when I got on the plane, as it reminded me of the little shitbirds you ride to O’Hare or Atlanta, not meant to cross oceans.

Why the hell wouldn’t they just keep making them, and tweak as needed.

The 73 does have a few things going for it: Pay a little extra cash, and you can get a higher rating on the engines that will take you in and out of most short runways. It handles real well on ice and snow. Unless you´re at max gross, it will outclimb a 60´s Fighter Jet. It flies higher than the Airbus competition and thus gets more direct routings and less weather.
But most importantly it is the Energizer Bunny. Keeps on going and going and going …

I love it when my flight is on a 757. I always try to book a flight that uses this plane. It just looks awesome compared to the stubby, squat 737. You feel like you’re on a “real” aircraft, not some glorified regional jet like the one’s that populate my home airport: CVG. It’s hard to believe that Boeing could let itself get out maneuvered by Airbus with the A380, and is at risk of this happening again due to their slavish devotion to the 737.

Airbus stepped up to the plate with the A321LR, but IMO Boeing made a huge mistake not replacing the 757. For years they tried to pass off the 739ER as an adequate shoe-filler but it has neither the performance nor the legs to do the 75’s more difficult missions.

I mean, how hard would it have been to slap on new engines, a new interior and a glass cockpit and create a 757NG? They might’ve even been able to get away with keeping the old wing. If they didn’t think there was a market for it then they need to fire their market researchers.

I hope they continue to sell a ton of 777s, 787s and 767Fs because Airbus is going to be the NB market leader for the foreseeable future.

That’s a lot of engineering work right there. Think of all the times the Top Gear blokes uttered that exact phrase “How hard could it be?”

A320 NEO project took 4 years from project approval to first flight. And as far as I can tell, this is a “simple” engine swap along with the ancillary improvements to the A320 since the legacy’s first flight….

The -200 is without a doubt the prettier of the sisters, but I always thought the -300 was nice looking as well. Problem is that extra length in fuselage completely destroys the plane’s exceptional performance.

Copa flies an extremely popular service using 737-800 and -700 between Boston and LatAm via Panama. The reason that the service is popular is because of their price (which is reasonable and includes a 2 suitcase allowance as default) but also because the connections through their PTY hub are fast and efficient. Plus — who wants to deal with US domestic flights or airlines if you can get decent service in coach without the hassle of going through “bus stations” like MIA, IAH, or (god forbid) EWR? Sitting for 5 hours in a 757 isn’t any more comfortable than sitting in a 737 if you’re in the middle seat, 2 rows off from the bathroom.

True enough – a crappy coach seat is a crappy coach seat. However, and maybe Pat can chime in, but in my experience, the larger planes handle chop better, so you don’t have those long stretches of seatbelt signs and bumpiness (and for me and those like me, long stretches of “omg I’m gonna die”)

I’ve never felt as cramped in my seat as I did on a Delta 757 OGG to LAX. I’m a little on the tall side (6’4″) but I could not sit with my knees in front of me. Had to keep my legs crossed at the ankles for the whole flight. I’ve never been on another plane that forced me to contort myself that way.

I don’t get it though. It’s just a metal tube. A cabin is a cabin, right?

In any case. SWA operates 737s mostly doesn’t it? I fly them a lot and haven’t experienced the same problem.

I completely agree. Delta’s trim has always been among the worst. At 6’2″ I have no expectation of comfort in any coach seat. It is kind of cool that the new thing is for most people not to recline. I don’t care if they do – it’s within their, and my, right. But I’m glad they generally don’t.

SWA does away with first and premium and just gives all the seats extra legroom on their 737s – one of the deepest coach seat pitches in the industry. I wish I could fly SWA’s coach seat on long-haul flights, because their 32-inch seats would be much nicer for 8+ hours than the 29-30 I usually see in long-haul coach.

Completely agree on the need for an updated 757. Great plane and I’ve flown on many. America West loved them and had them going everywhere. Just last week had a chance to fly a B6 321 and had the extra legroom center emergency exit window. Horrible seat – even added it to seatguru.com as a red not green seat. The exit door is deeper than the space around it eating into the “leg room” and the tray table and TV are from in the armrest. So the seat is inches narrower than the already bad Airbus seats, and the space in front is narrower due to the exit door bubble. 757s never had that problem. Too bad B6 is all against Boeing aircraft and stuck on the Airbus.

As a passenger who’s been flying primarily Delta for at least the past decade, the biggest problem I’ve had with the 757s I’ve been on (most, if not all of them ex-Northwest birds) is around in-seat amenities. None of them have had power outlets, either USB or AC, in Economy or “Comfort Plus”. Nor have any of them had seatback video; at best, you get the little overhead monitors to watch the (usually ehhhh) in-flight movie.
At least a lot of the 737s I’ve flown have been better equipped on that score.

These are determined by the operator (airline), not the manufacturer. Delta could upgrade their 757 interiors but has decided not to. Boeing built 757s from 1981 through 2004 so many were birthed before anyone had a need for power outletted seats.

Related: Delta is known for making money by flying older aircraft that have been sold off/abandoned by other major airlines.

Unlike other mainline US legacy carriers, Delta has decided that its best path to profitability is a strategy that utilizes older aircraft, and Delta has created a very extensive MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) organization, called TechOps, to support them. The oldest aircraft in the fleet are the McDonnell Douglas MD-88s.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines#Fleet

Delta actually has been upgrading the cabins on their 757s — SeatGuru shows 9 (!) different cabin configurations for their 757-200 and 2 for the stretched -300. Some of them have power outlets and in-seat video, and others don’t. The ex-Northwest ones are the 75M and 75N. They might not have bothered upgrading them because I believe they’re the oldest 757s in the fleet so they might not plan to keep them around as long. While they do like to keep older planes around even Delta has a point where a plane is deemed no longer economically viable to keep flying. And I think that while newer on average, their oldest 757s are older than their oldest MD-88s.

Actually Delta has upgraded the economy sections on many of its 757s. Those used on transcon routes, and on flights to Europe, all have refurbished cabins with in-seat video, USB and power ports. The business class cabins now have lie-flat seats in a surprisingly comfortable 2X2 configuration.

The 757’s specs have been referred to as MOM – middle of market, as they are above the 737/A320 but below 767/787/A330. There were numerous articles by the aviation pundits over the last year about doing a new MOM.

The general consensus was that restarting manufacturing of the 757 was impossible (all the tooling and expertise is gone). The 737 could repeatedly be updated because (astonishingly) the same type certificate could be reused each time reducing the development effort.

A new MOM would be highly expensive to develop, and there is considerable overlap with the models above and below. The market estimate was selling between a few hundred and one thousand, which is nowhere near enough to justify the costs. Note that this applies to both Boeing and Airbus.

I would doubt if the tooling is gone. While I cannot speak of Boeing, I did work for a number of years at a plastics plant that was a subcontractor to Boeing. They had injection molds for the 707 and 727 when I left the firm in 1998. You don’t get rid of tooling simply because you have ceased production.

As well, Boeing’s engineering team has their hands full. They’re working on 1) 737 MAX 9 and 200; 2) 787 stretch (-10); and 3) 777X (two variants). If Boeing is going to green-light a new MOM, the earliest we see physical product is 2025.

Pretty sure the range for the A321neo is 7400km, which is higher than the 757-300 (w/ winglets) and the 757-200 without them. But, the 757-200 (w/ winglets) has 200km more range (if I remember correctly). In my opinion, I think that 7400km is enough for transoceanic routes, especially when the CASM of the a321 is lower than the 757.

The market for 737-sized airliners is huge, so I’m really quite surprised that Boeing hasn’t launched a clean-sheet 737 replacement some time ago – e.g. instead of the 787. With so many potential orders to amortize the development costs, a new largely composite materials airliner, a bit wider and with the capability to stretch a bit bigger than the 737 seems the obvious next target for an all-new Boeing. A big problem for the 737 line is that the landing gear is not tall enough to easily fit modern high bypass engines – a new model would fix this. With the 787 somewhat larger than the 767, there is space for a larger-than-737 replacement, allowing the 767 to be phased out.

Thanks to Speed for pointing out the “NMA” program – I’d missed that, and it looks interesting.

The 757 always struck me as a somewhat odd plane. I think the wings are in common with the 767, so they are very large for the size of the plane. It always seemed to me a poor fit for the Boeing product line – it doesn’t take many more passengers than a 737 yet is much more expensive. There didn’t really seem enough space between 737 and 767 to fit another model. (I’m sure many here know more about this than I do, so corrections are welcome.)

MW, the 757’s wing is unique, smaller than the 767’s, sized for the former’s weight, range, and speed. However, the 757 shares its flight deck with the 767. That enables pilots, Patrick included, to fly both aircraft with a single type rating

Yup. The cockpit instrumentation is extremely similar (the 767’s cockpit is roomier, among minor differences), but the wings actually are pretty different. The planes fly differently, too. Although it’s bigger and heavier, the 767 is much lighter on the controls, thanks in part to the inboard ailerons that the 757 doesn’t have. They land differently as well. For whatever reason I tend to make better landings in the 757 than in the 767. For most pilots the opposite is true.

Boeing did propose a clean-sheet small narrowbody after the 737NG, codenamed Y1, thinking airlines would wait for a clean-sheet design . Once AIB launched the A320 NEO program and racked up orders (including AA – said to be the straw that broke Boeing’s back) they reversed course and opted for the MAX re-engine.

Also: the 787 is roughly equal in size and range to the 767, but what it offers is better operating economics and passenger experience. Yes Boeing planned to quickly supercede the 767 with the Dreamliner but delays and cost overruns with the program hit the spoilers on that.

[conclusion]
As a passenger, I [and many others] have preferred the 767’s 2-3-2 seating and vertical sidewall over any other twin-aisle or 3-3 single aisle. That is especially true on 5-10 hour trips like US transcon, between the mainland and Hawaii, or between the US east coast and Europe.

Is the 767-200’s stubby fuselage a problem? The 747SP was 47 ft shorter than the 747-100/-200 but it cruised faster – M.85 vs. M.84. The area ruling was better with the short fuselage. A 767NEO should cruise a bit faster than the 767-200’s M.80-M.82. That would be determined mostly by the new wing’s shape [aspect ratio, sweepback, cross section and wingtip] plus local fuselage drag reduction [nose cone, wing-body fairing; tail cone]

To summarize: a new Boeing MOM airplane based on the 767-200 fuselage, a smaller composite wing and tail, powered by 40K GTF’s, might just work. All of us armchair designers must let Boeing decide. They have the expertise and the money, but do they have the will? Time is running out. The 737-9MAX is neither viable nor realistic competition; its performance and sales are much inferior to the A321NEO’s

The 767-200 didn’t have good enough economies of scale, and so it was doomed. The -200ER had an enormous range, sure, but you couldn’t fit even 200 seats into the thing. It’s hard to make a profit on routes that long with so few passengers. (The 747SP suffered a similar fate once it was pretty much matched, performance-wise, by the 747-200.) However, with today’s engine technology, I’m thinking that a 767-200 sized plane would make a great 757 replacement. A wide cabin, which people really like, but short-bodied. Something along the lines of the A310.

In the USA, the 767-200 was originally a medium-range domestic airplane. As such, domestic operators configured their first -200’s [non-ER’s] at up to 210 seats, First class 2-2-2 at 36-38 inch pitch and Tourist 2-3-2 at 31-34 inch pitch.

A reminder to those commenting on the tight squeeze in 757’s, 737’s and A321’s – seat comfort and seat pitch are specified by the airline, not the manufacturer. As long as the seat and the interior arrangement meet FAA-required crashworthiness, aisle width and egress rules, the airline decides.

That said, my most recent flight was on a brand new Delta 737-900ER JFK-SEA. The seating was awful.

Like many Untied Airlines passengers, I cringe when I realize my flight is on one of the new 737s. I don’t know about the technical details of flying these beasts, but Untied has reduced Economy “Plus” seating specs to match what Economy Minus used to be – you can’t open a normal laptop and work it anymore. It’s now an awful plane to ride in.

On the plus side, though, they stopped with the TVs on the new planes as they realized most people have their own electronic viewers, so instead offer WiFi streaming (which sometimes even works). The best part of this is that it greatly reduces the amount of time spent shouting at passengers. On the older planes with TVs you get shouted at about DirectTV, shouted at about how great United is, shouted at during the extended play safety video which is mildly humorous only the first time you see it, and shouted at during the paid ads after that.

That said, IMO Boeing can’t wait until the next decade. The A321NEO is not yet in service but it
has already outsold the 757’s entire 1983-2005 twenty-two-year production. As Patrick has noted, the as-is 737MAX’s are at a dead end. Anything bigger and longer-range than the -900MAX would need who knows how many years and how many $$billions: bigger engines, longer landing gear, new wheel wells, a larger wing [extended or new], another pair of entry doors for easier loading and increased FAA exit-limited capacity, plus new mid-cabin galleys and/or lavs. Also more fuel, increased takeoff weight and on and on. Guess what – we have just redefined the 757, but with a new engine. Oops

Other forums have suggested a derivative of the twin-aisle short-body 767-200 as a replacement. The back-of-the-envelope guess is – maybe. The existing 767’s empty weight is much more than the 757’s and its wing is too big and heavy. The original 767 wing was sized for the long range 395,000 lb 767-200ER and longer 412,000 lb MTOW 767-300ER. Any MOM 767NEO would need a new smaller and lighter composite wing. P&WA says they can do 40,000 lb-thrust GTF’s – anything bigger would be too big. More efficient engines mean less fuel tankage. Lower thrust means a smaller tail, probably also composite. These requirements reduce empty weight and max takeoff weight

[long comment, first part. Patrick, I hope that’s OK]
The 737 and 757 have the same cabin cross section, shared with and derived from the 707 and 727. The 737/757 vs. A320/321 cabin widths are not that different: Airbus is 6 inches wider but that’s just above the floor. Boeing’s max width is at the window belt. Airbus can have half-inch wider seats but only if the window seat passenger’s head and shoulders are very close to the sidewall.

The 757 shares its flight deck with the wider 767, giving the 757 a larger flight deck than the 737. Also wider because, unlike the 737, the 757 fuselage did not start to taper until the forward entry door. The flight deck is also longer. In the early 1990’s, there was some thought given to using the 757’s flight deck on the then-new 737NG, but that concept was rejected because of cost, weight, and possible loss of a type rating common to all previous 737’s.

Boeing pulled the plug on the 757 in 2003 due to a lack of orders. The last of 1,050 757’s was delivered in 2005. All the tooling was scrapped. The Renton engineering, production and assembly facilities were partly converted to 737 and P-8 use but mostly razed and the land sold to commercial and residential developers. So, there is no way to restart a line to make a 757MAX. Many 757’s are being converted to freighters for FEDEX, DHL, and other shippers. Others have been or will be scrapped. Too bad – the 757 is indeed a good-looking and unique airplane

My recollection is that before Airbus launched the A320neo, Boeing wasn’t going to build another 737 derivative … what became the 737 MAX. Rather they were set to design and build an entirely new airplane which in some variant could “replace” the 757. Instead money and engineering and manufacturing resources were spent on the MAX.

This from Aviation Week in November 2015 …

The embryonic “757-replacement” NMA [New Midsize Airplane] study is for an aircraft with more capacity than the 737-900ER/737-9 but with less range than the 787. Speaking at events surrounding the Dubai Airshow, John Wojick, senior vice president of global sales and marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, says: “We see substantial demand. If we can produce an airplane with a range of 4,500-5,000 nm, seating about 220-280 passengers, then there would be an awful lot of demand. I’d say in the thousands. Easily more than 2,000.”

[ … ]

The NMA is in line for possible development beyond the current committed commercial development programs. “We have got to finish the MAX family, which begins to deliver in 2017, then we have the 787-10 in 2018 and the 777X in 2020 (777-9X) and 2022 (777-8X). Beyond that, we have been studying opportunities to enhance our product lines going forward. It is very clear to us that there is an interest in an aircraft larger than MAX in terms of seats but with less range than the 787,” adds Wojick.http://aviationweek.com/caring-engines-today-and-future/boeing-s-n

When a business says “It is very clear to us [that our customers want thus-and-such, etc.]…”, it means that they have no idea how to deliver it, and/or that there is serious internal conflict within the organization as to whether it is a good idea. In either case, if the product is delivered, it will be late, and probably not good.

Businesses that have their product pipeline under control do not need to say such things, because the right product is already known to be in development and on track.